Future highway or interstate expansion?

[Just the facts]

JFT, why would you want a milage tax instead of just raising the current gas tax? Wouldn't it be easier to sell and make things less complicated?

They could do that BUT... people are using less gas as fuel efficience increases and more and more cars are not using gasoline at all. The new Ford Fusion gets the equivalent of 99 mpg and it doesn't use a drop of gasoline. Meanwhile, my pickup gets 15 mpg so why is it fair that I pay more tax to use the same road the Ford Fusion gets to drive on for free?

[ou48A]

The experts who study these issues have determined that a by-pass on the eastern sides of the metro to help relived the I-35 congestion will be needed. Because this is a quality of life issue for ten of thousands of people who could care less about sprawl, like it or not, it’s eventually going to be built.
In the Norman area there are building restrictions in place that would probably prevent this area from becoming highly developed. Others could do the same.

[Just the facts]

Demand outpaces supply... how do you think the demand got there? I-35 is still in the process of being widened and it is already at rush hour capacity on the completed part. Do we think traffic will magically improve on the part ALREADY completed when the section under construction gets done? People who drive the completed section already want more lanes and a whole other freeway.

But anyhow, it doesn't matter because as it has been pointed out several times, there isn't money to do it even if we wanted to.

[Plutonic Panda]

THIS.

This is why I cringe a small amount when urbanists (I love each and every one of you) toss out Induced Demand at every opportunity.

It's certainly something we need to recognize and definitely need to avoid...but we can't come out and just say, well if we made EK Gaylord 10 lanes, we'd have bottle necks there every day at 5pm.

I stood out at EKG the other day during rush hour. The amount of "congestion" that is there in reality is a really kind of silly. I took several pictures between 5-5:30 where there were zero cars on EGK at the time for the stretch of road I was standing at.

Sooooo... I think we need to be more honest with ourselves and the public. Adding lanes and new highways can certainly encourage more growth and traffic...but we've got to be able to make better cases as well for denying the massive investment.

For me, it's much more about the $$$ than congestion. I really couldn't care less about congestion because I don't drive. But I care a ton about our local governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on highway construction when most cities in Oklahoma still don't have sidewalks. It's a fairness, equality, and freedom issue. If at all the places I live I have to own a car to survive, then all the new road construction in lieu of pedestrian infrastructure is a tax I pay directly. We are all subsidizing the automobile --- way more than even car owners want to admit. At time when local governments are increasingly relying on debt for financing and roads are crumbling, it isn't a hard or unreasonable request to have us consider whether we should be investing in places that will continue to cost us more $ in the future or reinvest in places where infrastructure already exists and can be leveraged for more growth.

This has everything to do with freedom. Not simply the freedom for you to live where you want but the freedom to be capable of living in many, many places within our cities.



Additionally, there are several high-capacity roads in the world that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian friendly. I love what the Dutch and in some part the Chinese, are doing on this front. Let's focus our efforts mostly on building better transit infrastructure if and when they are built and improving the grids we already have. If the discussion about building a new highway comes up, I'd rather counter it with a request to spend those $ on places, infrastructure that has already seen private investment and development.

Very well said.

[Plutonic Panda]

They could do that BUT... people are using less gas as fuel efficience increases and more and more cars are not using gasoline at all. The new Ford Fusion gets the equivalent of 99 mpg and it doesn't use a drop of gasoline. Meanwhile, my pickup gets 15 mpg so why is it fair that I pay more tax to use the same road the Ford Fusion gets to drive on for free?

Well, I can't really argue with that. I would think the only argument would be "encouraging" people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

[Just the facts]

Well, I can't really argue with that. I would think the only argument would be "encouraging" people to drive more fuel efficient cars.

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

[Plutonic Panda]

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

You're right about that. I never really thought of that way. I think it would be a good idea then doing a mileage tax, but the real question now is, would people support it? 2,000+ extra dollars a year would be a hard bargain. I guess the government could say, no mileage tax, no new roads and expansions. I think that would cause a few problems though. Something will have to be done though if it cost a billion dollars to redo 5 miles of interstate through OKC. Why was that thing so expensive anyways? Was that just raw materials costs?

[RadicalModerate]

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . What would you do?

Sorry: Unfair imagination: I don't buy lottery tickets.

[Just the facts]

I just made the dollar amounts up. I have no idea what the milage tax would actually be.

[Plutonic Panda]

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . What would you do?

Sorry: Unfair imagination: I don't buy lottery tickets.

My neighbor bought an Escalade themed one. :P

[Just the facts]

What if we both win the lottery at the same time? I'd buy one of those little fancy golf cart-lookin' cars and donate the rest to road maintenence. I guess that is beyond the realm of possibilities . . . I don't buy lottery tickets.

I would do my best to keep as much of my winnings away from government as I could But I don't play the lottery either. For some reason I have a philsophical problem taxing the dream of financial independence, which is really want the lottery is - just a $1 tax on a dream.

[Plutonic Panda]

I just made the dollar amounts up. I have no idea what the milage tax would actually be.

Well, it seems about right. Anyways, I still think it would be a hard sell.

[RadicalModerate]

Since almost none of the "Interstates" meet the original design requirements for landing aircraft (flat for x-number of miles) as mandated by President Eisenhower when the system was first proposed--as a part of national defense--I don't think any new ones should be built. In fact, all sections that don't meet the original standard should be torn up and converted to town houses with organic gardens along with BarterCenters. Of course, that proposal has about as much chance of success as people, in general, actually buying into General Eisenhower's warnings about watching out for shennanigans by The Military/Industrial Complex. =)

[Rover]

I would do my best to keep as much of my winnings away from government as I could But I don't play the lottery either. For some reason I have a philsophical problem taxing the dream of financial independence, which is really want the lottery is - just a $1 tax on a dream.

At least it is a voluntary tax.

[BoulderSooner]

THIS.

This is why I cringe a small amount when urbanists (I love each and every one of you) toss out Induced Demand at every opportunity.

It's certainly something we need to recognize and definitely need to avoid...but we can't come out and just say, well if we made EK Gaylord 10 lanes, we'd have bottle necks there every day at 5pm.

I stood out at EKG the other day during rush hour. The amount of "congestion" that is there in reality is a really kind of silly. I took several pictures between 5-5:30 where there were zero cars on EGK at the time for the stretch of road I was standing at.

Sooooo... I think we need to be more honest with ourselves and the public. Adding lanes and new highways can certainly encourage more growth and traffic...but we've got to be able to make better cases as well for denying the massive investment.

For me, it's much more about the $$$ than congestion. I really couldn't care less about congestion because I don't drive. But I care a ton about our local governments spending hundreds of millions of dollars on highway construction when most cities in Oklahoma still don't have sidewalks. It's a fairness, equality, and freedom issue. If at all the places I live I have to own a car to survive, then all the new road construction in lieu of pedestrian infrastructure is a tax I pay directly. We are all subsidizing the automobile --- way more than even car owners want to admit. At time when local governments are increasingly relying on debt for financing and roads are crumbling, it isn't a hard or unreasonable request to have us consider whether we should be investing in places that will continue to cost us more $ in the future or reinvest in places where infrastructure already exists and can be leveraged for more growth.

This has everything to do with freedom. Not simply the freedom for you to live where you want but the freedom to be capable of living in many, many places within our cities.



Additionally, there are several high-capacity roads in the world that are transit, bicycle, and pedestrian friendly. I love what the Dutch and in some part the Chinese, are doing on this front. Let's focus our efforts mostly on building better transit infrastructure if and when they are built and improving the grids we already have. If the discussion about building a new highway comes up, I'd rather counter it with a request to spend those $ on places, infrastructure that has already seen private investment and development.

i don't agree with every thing you wrote but thank you for the well thought out and reasoned comments

[BoulderSooner]

Demand outpaces supply... how do you think the demand got there? I-35 is still in the process of being widened and it is already at rush hour capacity on the completed part. Do we think traffic will magically improve on the part ALREADY completed when the section under construction gets done? People who drive the completed section already want more lanes and a whole other freeway.

But anyhow, it doesn't matter because as it has been pointed out several times, there isn't money to do it even if we wanted to.

If the I35/I235 corridor were fully finished tomorrow (all the way to highway 9 west) with the 44/235 interchange finished and the 240/35 interchange fixed ... then yes traffic would be noticeably improved on the entire route

[BoulderSooner]

And what if we all drove more fuel efficient cars, who pays for road maintenance? My wife is now convienced her next car will be electric. When that happens it will be one less person helping pay for road maintenance - but still using the road.

for get the fact that cars don't do much damage to roads .. trucks do ( you know how most of our good get to the POS)

[BoulderSooner]

1 truck damage is about equal to 10k cars.

thank you

[RadicalModerate]

1 truck damage is about equal to 10k cars.

Of course you are familiar with the old cliché/truism: "Everything you have came by truck."
I am fairly sure we have all seen the ads for the railroads about freight tonnage hauled by rail as compared to trucks on highways.
How about . . . All housing development shall henceforth only be allowed within walking/shopping cart pushing distance of train depots.

Sort of like in the good old days before the invention of Henry Ford's Frankenstein: The Mass Production of Internal Combustion Engine Carriers.

[Video Expert]

If the I35/I235 corridor were fully finished tomorrow (all the way to highway 9 west) with the 44/235 interchange finished and the 240/35 interchange fixed ... then yes traffic would be noticeably improved on the entire route

Absolutely. Those interchanges are so outdated and poorly designed, they are definitely the main culprits of the congestion along and near that corridor. Using your hypothetical along with throwing in a third lane each way on I-44 going under I-40 (by Mathis Brothers) and very few would even be talking about the need for new metro highways.

[Just the facts]

How many trucks is one winter and one summer equal to?

[BoulderSooner]

Once we started to subsidize highway construction, we really doomed freight by rail. If we got rid of it, highways would shrink, grow more expensive in accordance of market costs and rail freight would go up. Agree?

the highway system and car also greatly helped the expansion of the US economy in the last 75 years

[Just the facts]

You know, despite the massive federal spending to build the interstate system we still only have 4 trans-continental interstates (1-10, 1-40, I-80, and I-90). Even the poorly run Amtrack manages to do 2 (4 if you can't routes that only go as far east as Chicago).

[BoulderSooner]

You know, despite the massive federal spending to build the interstate system we still only have 4 trans-continental interstates (1-10, 1-40, I-80, and I-90). Even the poorly run Amtrack manages to do 2.

point being?

[Just the facts]

But what do we have to show for it exactly? Catch my drift?

An obligation for something we can't afford to maintain?